The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm not counting Iesaiah's comment as a "keep", because they only address the removal of the PROD tag, not whether or why the article should be kept in this process.  Sandstein  09:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Journal for Religion, Film and Media (JRFM)

Journal for Religion, Film and Media (JRFM) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by article creator (SPA) without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Please allow me to point out that the PRODheader of the article said that one may remove it IF new substantial information is added to the article that may affect the PROD. Information about the indices that list the JRFM was provided. This was considered relevant, therefore the PROD was removed by me. Iesaiah ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The information added (indexing by Ulrich's and DOAJ) is rather trivial as neither are selective databases and listing in them does not contribute to notability. There was also an unsourced phrase about listings that apparently have been applied for (which I have removed), none of which are selective either. As I cannot find this information on the journal website, I am curious where Iesaiah found that information. In any case, with just two issues published, no independent sources, and no listings in selective databases, article creation is way too soon. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• An additional note: being listed in Ulrichsweb isn't something that would be a sign of notability, as it's a routine database listing. This means that while there are some notable publications listed there, there are far more that aren't notable. There is no charge for being listed and the site only requires that a publication meet the definition of a serial, which many publications of this type do. In other words, while it's a respected database isn't not an extremely selective one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NJOURNALS and WP:TOOSOON. St Anselm ( talk) 08:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.